Essay Abstract

In this essay, I review the importance of languages in the study of reality, following the well-known aphorisms by Galilei, Bohr and many others. The emphasis on these aspects helps us to understand that it is not meaningful to ask if the reality if "digital" or "analog", but we have to search what is the best language to study some specific aspects of the reality. This problem is particularly felt in the case of frontier science, like quantum gravity, where, in front of several theories (syntaxes) available, there are presently neither observations nor experiments leading to the building of a convincing semantics. You will not find here recipes for a definitive theory. Just thoughts and questions.

Author Bio

L. Foschini graduated in physics (1997), electric engineering (1990) and received the PhD in 1994. He is currently staff researcher at the Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera of the Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF) in Milano/Merate (Italy), working mainly in the field of relativistic astrophysics. He is auhor or coauthor of more than 300 publications, half of them of popular science, and two books.

Download Essay PDF File

Luigi

A very refreshing and often incisive read. I agree that the languages we use for QM and GR are the issue, as nature has just one language. Indeed I've been learning one that fits better already, touched on in my own essay (2020 Vision..), where I also offer a few new words for English!

Your view on maths is interesting. I also define an essential role that only maths can fulfil, whilst also suggesting our reliance on it to avoid development of our conceptual thought capabilities is what has held us back so badly for the last 100 years. In other words I may disagree it's the most essential language to describe nature, but is essential and even more important, must be better understood, tamed and more carefully used.

More broadly, I agree language is a massive barrier to understanding. The pictures that words conjure up in our minds are all different. In many ways this makes the human race stronger and more likely to survive, but it's a constant drag on communication. I'd be interested in how much my own essay communicates with you.

Best wishes

Peter

    13 days later

    • [deleted]

    • Post #3

    Dear Sir,

    Your essay is very interesting. Yes, language is very important, as without it we cannot share the information with each other. This faculty is limited in living beings other than humans. You say: "it is more usual to start from the semantics (observations and experiments) and then build the syntax". The first is instrumental in developing scientific language, while the second is instrumental in developing popular local language. We agree that "it is not possible to use only one language".

    You say: "It is possible to speak about water at different levels, by means of different languages offering many perspectives, but we are always speaking about water". This only shows our limitations and is caused due to reductionism.

    You say: "the merging of the two fundamental physical theories, quantum mechanics and general relativity". We consider both as incomplete. You say about "anti-spacetime" without defining it properly.

    We agree that: "a quantum should be elementary; otherwise it is not a quantum)". But the question is wherefrom the quantum came into existence.

    You can read and comment on our essay also.

    Regards,

    basudeba.

      Dear Luigi,

      indeed, as you say, "The matter is not if the reality is "digital" or "analog", but what is the best language - if any - to speak about the nature at any level of complexity.". Your essay is beautiful and well-prepared from "both eyes" - the philosophical one and the physical one. Thanks for reminding us to review our languages from time to time, and to try to deepen their semantics - we may have the surprise to find new meanings, clarify some concepts and remove some contradictions.

      Best regards,

      Cristi

        Dear Luigi

        I have read your essay, and I would like to make some comments.

        I: You have reiteratively emphasized the importance of language in physics. But language is a set of symbols following some rules that at the end try to express perceptions, feelings, ideas, thoughts, etc. intended meanings. Popper remarked that in the growing of knowledge the problem is not precisely how we describe the world, in spite of our inability or incapacity to express our ideas by means of theories, but to develop new approaches and insights that help us understand nature no matter the language.

        You: For example, quantum mechanics is part of the fundamental physics, but it has no meaning to say if the wavelike language is more fundamental of the particle-like one.

        Both languages are necessary to have the best opportunity to speak about the nature. The same could occur also below the Planck scale. So, we should not reject a priori the possibility that quantum mechanics and general relativity could be two complementary, but mutually exclusive, languages.

        I: If we knew what a particle is or what a wave is, there would be no duality, so both languages would be in reality just one. Having this complementarity only provokes confusions and ambiguity. If one assumes that they are at the fundamental level one single entity there would be no need for dualities. For instance, this duality can be resolved by adopting the notion of soliton. Thus, a particle can be seen as localized wave packet and in essence as a wave.

        You: Many physical theories do not even take into account the arrow of time and are equally valid under time reversal, which is clearly unphysical. Basically, we could say that we are still at the stage of Saint Augustine, who wrote:

        What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to

        explain it to him who asks, I do not know.

        I: I agree with you that physical theories are unphysical under time reversal. One way to get out of this conundrum is considering the self-field (electrical, gravitational) of particles. See for instance the work of Rohrlich attached here.

        We all know that the notion of time is preceded by the notion of motion or change. In physical theories like classical mechanics this change is represented by the parameter t, whilst in special relativity this idea is just multiply by the speed of light so the evolution variable becomes ct. It is a common belief that motion is defined in terms of space and time and thus it becomes a vicious circle. This is because one considers motion as something dependent of position and time. I deeper reflexion shows that this may not be the case for motion can be considered as a fundamental quantity independent of space and time.

        Please take a look at my essay where I briefly explain the notion of space and time.

        Good luck in the constest

        IsraelAttachment #1: 2000RohrlichSHPMP31B2000_1ClassicalArowTime.pdf

          23 days later

          Thank you for your comment. However, I think to language as a useful tool to study and not as a barrier. We have to learn how to use it, instead of thinking to it as something not useful.

          Good luck for your essay!

          Luigi

          Thank you for your note. I have not defined an "anti-spacetime", because I think that it does not exist. It was a rhetorical statement.

          Good luck for your essay!

          Luigi

          Thank you to you for having read and appreciated my work.

          Luigi

          Thank you for your comments.

          You wrote that:

          "Popper remarked that in the growing of knowledge the problem is not precisely how we describe the world, in spite of our inability or incapacity to express our ideas by means of theories, but to develop new approaches and insights that help us understand nature no matter the language."

          However, it is the language that shapes our way to think and, hence, to develop new approaches and insights. A proper care of the language is important in understanding the most fruitful ways to study. Otherwise, you can lose your time on false problems, because the words drive you in the wrong way.

          Good luck for your essay.

          Luigi

          Thank you very much for having pointed to me your interesting essay. I am always happy to read that other people thinks about the importance of the language. I did not know the essay by Fortun and Bernstein: it seems to be interesting and I have ordered it to my bookshop.

          Thanks again for your note.

          Luigi

          Thank you very much for having pointed to me your interesting essay. I am always happy to read that other people thinks about the importance of the language. I did not know the essay by Fortun and Bernstein: it seems to be interesting and I have ordered it to my bookshop.

          Thanks again for your note.

          Luigi

          Dear Luigi,

          I enjoyed reading your interesting essay. Your perspective on the importance of the role of language in the first half of the paper is something also discussed in my essay. It seems we make several of the same points in slightly different ways.

          Regards,

          Tom

            Recently the Navier-Stokes equation has an equivalency with the Einstein field equation.

            http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.2451

            The solution sets of the two can be mapped into each other. This is an interesting development, for this is a functorial map between different linguistic sets.

            Your paper is good.

            Cheers LC

              Thank you for having pointed to me this work. I'll read it.

              Cheers,

              LF

              Dear Tom,

              I've read and appreciated your essay. It is really interesting and I am happy to see that you too pointed to some concepts common to my essay.

              I have a couple of notes. First, you cited and agreed with Heisenberg, when he wrote that Galilei shared Plato's ideas. No, Galilei was not a platonist, as underlined by his linguistic concept of mathematics. Mathematics as a language is at odds with the platonism, where ideas are something a priori with respect to human beings and the language. Indeed, Plato spoke about maieutics, which was a concept of knowledge based on reminding something already existent and known. This is really not the concept of science emerging from the text of Galilei.

              I think that one important step missing in Heisenberg's essays and yours is the Renaissance, which was mandatory to prepare the right cultural humus where Galilei's science could grew.

              Another point refers to the fact that you made examples of measurements of finite quantities and you conclude that the nature could be described only by discrete languages. Obviously, if you consider only finite quantities, you will obtain a digital answer.

              In addition, by writing that, you implicitly say that there is no infinite in nature, while there are examples pointing to its existence, such as the curvature of a spacetime singularity.

              Good luck for your essay in the contest!

              Cheers,

              LF

              • [deleted]

              • Post #17

              Dear Luigi,

              You have written a nice essay, much of which I am in agreement. However, I believe that you have made a mistake in the definition of your premise. You wrote:

              "The two pillars of any language are syntax and semantics. The former deals with the basic formal structure of the language, while the latter refers to the meaning of the signs and symbols of the language."

              which I agree is a correct and meaningful statement, but then you write:

              "Nevertheless, in physical sciences, we can identify the theory with the syntax and the experiment/observation with the semantics (e.g. [8])."*

              which is a statement of which I cannot agree. If semantics (meaning) can be identified with experiments/observations (data) alone, then we would have no need for syntax (theory). Experiments/observations can only be the basis and support for a particular theory. The meaning derived from any theory then comes from its interpretation. Meaning can never be derived from data alone, which I believe that you fully agree, since your examples show how meaning changes as the theory changes. But one theory can have several differing interpretations.

              IMO the meaning behind of the quantum mechanical description of nature is not yet fully understood. This is due to the fact that, even though QM gives a correct mathematical description of experimental results and observations, it still has several different interpretations, none of which is quite satisfactory to give us full understanding of the microscopic nature of reality. It may be that a deeper understanding will never be achieved, and this is a consequence of the true nature of microscopic reality. It is my hope that this is not true.

              If I have misunderstood your statement * above, please let me know.

              BTW, you wrote:

              "Para-phrasing Augustus de Morgan(7 ), I could say that today the two eyes of the knowledge are philosophy and science: scientists remove the philosophical eye, while philosophers remove the scientific eye, each believing that it sees better with one eye than with two."

              This statement is a true gem. IMO philosophy is where theory meets interpretation!

              Best Regards,

              Dan

                Dear Dan,

                thanks a lot for your kind note. Let me to answer you with an example. Please consider a dictionary: it is made of words and their semantic field. Pure semantics. But it is useless without a syntax that allow you to build sentences. But the syntax is not just a way to link the words, but it restrict the semantic field of words (although misunderstandings are always present). A very simple example, which I published with more information in an old essay (quant-ph/9804040v4) is the following. Try inserting the word "only" in every possible place in the sentence: "I helped Mickey Mouse eat his cheese last week". You will see that already such a simple sentence slightly changes its global meaning.

                Hope it helps.

                Cheers,

                Luigi

                • [deleted]

                • Post #19

                Dear Luigi,

                I'm still a little confused. When does interpretation come into the picture? Doesn't it have a major influence on meaning? For example, the sentence:

                You did a really good job last week.

                could have two different global meanings depending on the context and the manner in which it was said to someone. It could have been said with sarcasm or sincerity. One sentence, with completely opposing meanings depending on context and interpretation, yet it has the same semantics and syntax. Is this not correct? Believe me, I am misunderstood all the time, so I should be an expert. :)

                Isn't this why when people communicate via these forums, sometimes it's necessary to add a :) or a ;) so the intention of the statement is better understood.

                It seems to me that:

                semantics-->(field of all possible meaning), plus syntax-->(greatly reduced subset of possible meaning), plus interpretation -->(one possible meaning)

                The interpretation doesn't have to be true for this to relation to hold true.

                Have a great day!

                Dan

                P.S. BTW, That last sentence was sincere :)

                  Dear Dan,

                  you wrote a nice example, but I think that in science you never arrive at only one possible meaning, as in spoken language. Indeed, you noted the need of some extra symbols like smiles. I add that it is often not sufficient, because we - human beings - have the unconscious that always elaborate (obviously in an unknown way) what we read or hear. The unconscious itself is structured as a language, as found by the French psychoanalyst Jaques Lacan. If you write an offense by joke and add a :), the could be anyway one reader who believe you are not joking, because he/she does not believe to the smile.

                  The same occurs for science. You can make your measurements, giving a meaning to some physical quantities. Then, you can elaborate a theory linking all these quantities and then having a global picture. But each human being will give to this complex of things different "interpretations". I think that two human beings will never fully agree on an interpretation. They can agree on certain details and be satisfied of this partial agreement. But I think that if they dig into their thoughts, they barely find a full agreement. Perhaps we think to know what is an electron, but if we try writing down its definition, we will barely obtain two similar - not to say equal - sentences.

                  This is not so dreadful as it could seem at a first look. We are always forced by social convictions to believe that the misunderstanding is something negative. I do not think so. I think that the misunderstanding is the spring that push human beings to develop new science. New theories were born when there were strong misunderstandings, not when each agreed on a certain interpretation. A theory is no more producing new science when there is a globally full agreement on many details.

                  So, by updating your scheme, I can write:

                  semantics-->(field of all possible meaning linked to a specific sign), plus syntax-->(link between signs; greatly reduced subset of possible global meaning), plus interpretation -->(if there are several possible meaning, then there is open space for discovery)

                  The science of books and articles can deal with the first two. The latter is the spring keeping science alive.

                  Thank you for your intriguing comments.

                  Luigi